How complex the conditional clause is allowed

[Peter Liu]

someting like

return (a==b)?a:((b==c)?:..)................

thanks

[peter koch]

Peter Liu skrev:

someting like

return (a==b)?a:((b==c)?:..)................

thanks

There is no limit. Your compiler might have one, but it is unlikely you
will encounter it. So just go ahead with your machine-generated code
;-)

/Peter

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Peter Liu wrote:

Subject: How complex the conditional clause is allowed

It is considered poor form around these parts not put your question in the
body of your post.

someting like

return (a==b)?a:((b==c)?:..)................

The standard does not impose a limit. It recommends that a compiler should
support at least 256 nesting levels of parenthesized expressions within a
full expression.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Pete Becker]

Peter Liu wrote:

someting like

return (a==b)?a:((b==c)?:..)................

This is legal and useful.

return a == b ? 1
: a == c ? 2
: a == d ? 3
: 4;

--

-- Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com)
Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and
Reference." (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

[Steve Pope]

Kai-Uwe Bux <jk********@gmx.netwrote:

It is considered poor form around these parts not put your question
in the body of your post.

Really? I've never heard of such a rule.

Steve

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Steve Pope:

Kai-Uwe Bux <jk********@gmx.netwrote:

>It is considered poor form around these parts not put your question
in the body of your post.

Really? I've never heard of such a rule.

Check out Usenet netiquette pages. It must be there somewhere. If not,
write an updated such page yourself.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Steve Pope]

Alf P. Steinbach <al***@start.nowrote:

>* Steve Pope:

>Kai-Uwe Bux <jk********@gmx.netwrote:

>>It is considered poor form around these parts not put your question
in the body of your post.

Really? I've never heard of such a rule.

>Check out Usenet netiquette pages. It must be there somewhere.

I've been on Usenet for decades and could probably quote many
of the common etiquette FAQ's verbatim. (And I mostly agree
with them, even some of the quaint outdated clauses.)

If not, write an updated such page yourself.

Why should I do that when I don't consider it a decent rule?

Steve

[andrewmcdonagh]

On Dec 2, 2:19 pm, "Peter Liu" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

someting like

return (a==b)?a:((b==c)?:..)................

thanks

aside from compiler limits or not, the real limit should be one of
readability.

Writing maintainable, easy to understand code is always more preferable
to companies, than macho 'look how clever I am, I can write a highly
deeply nested highly complex conditional cause'

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Steve Pope wrote:

Kai-Uwe Bux <jk********@gmx.netwrote:

>It is considered poor form around these parts not put your question
in the body of your post.

Really? I've never heard of such a rule.

It interferes with proper quoting because it is easy to forget to manually
cut and paste the question from the subject field into the quotation.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Jim Langston]

"Steve Pope" <sp*****@speedymail.orgwrote in message
news:ek**********@blue.rahul.net...

Alf P. Steinbach <al***@start.nowrote:

>>* Steve Pope:

>>Kai-Uwe Bux <jk********@gmx.netwrote:

>>>It is considered poor form around these parts not put your question
in the body of your post.

Really? I've never heard of such a rule.

>>Check out Usenet netiquette pages. It must be there somewhere.

I've been on Usenet for decades and could probably quote many
of the common etiquette FAQ's verbatim. (And I mostly agree
with them, even some of the quaint outdated clauses.)

>If not, write an updated such page yourself.

Why should I do that when I don't consider it a decent rule?

I've known that rule for years, and abide by it. What internet have you
been connected to?

[peter koch]

Kai-Uwe Bux skrev:

Peter Liu wrote:

Subject: How complex the conditional clause is allowed

It is considered poor form around these parts not put your question in the
body of your post.

For what it is worth, I agree completely. It is annoying not to have
the whole context in the message body.

/Peter
[snip]

[Marcus Kwok]

andrewmcdonagh <an************@gmail.comwrote:

On Dec 2, 2:19 pm, "Peter Liu" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>someting like

return (a==b)?a:((b==c)?:..)................

thanks

aside from compiler limits or not, the real limit should be one of
readability.

Writing maintainable, easy to understand code is always more preferable
to companies, than macho 'look how clever I am, I can write a highly
deeply nested highly complex conditional cause'

True, but with proper formatting this can be very readable (look at Pete
Becker's example).

--
Marcus Kwok
Replace 'invalid' with 'net' to reply

[andrewmcdonagh]

On Dec 5, 6:58 pm, [e-mail] (Marcus Kwok) wrote:

andrewmcdonagh <[e-mail]:

On Dec 2, 2:19 pm, "Peter Liu" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

someting like

return (a==b)?a:((b==c)?:..)................

thanks

aside from compiler limits or not, the real limit should be one of
readability.

Writing maintainable, easy to understand code is always more preferable
to companies, than macho 'look how clever I am, I can write a highly
deeply nested highly complex conditional cause'True, but with proper formatting this can be very readable (look at Pete

Becker's example).

--
Marcus Kwok
Replace 'invalid' with 'net' to reply

I'd disagree - the example is noddy at best...

with a more realistic bunch of conditionals, formatting wouldn't help
as much - YMMV

Andrew

[CTG]

My Question is why would you want to make the code as unreadble as
possible?
Peter Liu wrote:

someting like

return (a==b)?a:((b==c)?:..)................

thanks

[peter koch]

CTG skrev:

My Question is why would you want to make the code as unreadble as
possible?
Peter Liu wrote:

someting like

return (a==b)?a:((b==c)?:..)................

thanks

Why does everybody find the above unreadable? Why I admit its not a
model of beauty, I fail to find a nicer way to do stuff like that.
Would you prefer a long series of if-then-else statements?

[bogdan]

"""peter koch ÐÉÓÁÌ(Á):
"""

CTG skrev:

My Question is why would you want to make the code as unreadble as
possible?
Peter Liu wrote:

someting like
>
return (a==b)?a:((b==c)?:..)................
>
thanks

Why does everybody find the above unreadable? Why I admit its not a
model of beauty, I fail to find a nicer way to do stuff like that.
Would you prefer a long series of if-then-else statements?

http://magegame.ru/?rf=626f6764616e